back to article Cartoon smut law to make life sucky for Olympic organisers

Government zeal in pursuing anyone suspected of harbouring paedophilic tendencies may shortly rebound – with unintended consequences for the 2012 Olympic logo. Earlier this month, the Coroners & Justice Bill 2009 received the Royal Assent. This Act was another of those portmanteau pieces of legislation for which the current …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Hugh G. Rection
    Paris Hilton

    The title is required.

    “The London 2012 logo depicts the figure 2012 and nothing else.”

    A bad case of head in the sand if you ask me.

    Paris, because she knows all about giving head.

  2. iamapizza
    Unhappy

    A bit too late

    This law has come out a bit too late. I often feel like I'm one of the few remaining who hates the 2012 logo *and* still remembers my hate for it on a regular basis. It's unfortunate that after the uproar when it was revealed, it just died down and was forgotten. Once we get closer to the 2012 Olympics, it'll be pointed out a few times, but nothing's going to happen. We're going to travel in those wonderful underground trains in the morning, full of foreigners, and I don't know about you, but I am going to feel embarrassed for my city with this logo "proudly" splashed everywhere.

    This new 'smut law' seems like a ray of hope, but I'm not going to hold out on any; the 2012 logo is going to stay as it is and it will be *everywhere* soon. *sob* *sniff*

  3. Nomen Publicus
    IT Angle

    It's a bad logo anyway

    I've been waiting for "the powers that be" to admit that the Olympics 2012 logo was just a place holder until they could come up with something better. Here's a perfect excuse.

  4. Winkypop Silver badge
    Megaphone

    London: 2012 - I'm offended, it's outrageous, etc!

    Where do I claim?

    When do I get my cash ?

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Doh!

    Looks a bit more like Maggie Simpson, and if you squint a little the other shape looks like the Pope.

    Oh no, religious intolerance and the don't think of the children brigade collide: order me a up a tub of popcorn, I'll be back for breakfast.

  6. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    Hmmm... thoughtcrime .... children....

    A cake so appealing that few lawmakers have the mental ability to resist. I doubt whether any consequences will come out of really shite and sinfully expensive official rorschach blobs for chest-beating "panis et circenses" programs that a nearly bankrupt government can ill afford. Laws apply to YOU.

    Now excuse me while I fap to anime porn while I still can.

    That hand logo should do.

  7. James O'Shea
    Troll

    Think of the children

    Clearly those responsible for this outrage are all paedophiles and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    And those who try to give them cover are just as guilty and should be prosecuted with them.

    And the law should follow the trail of responsibility wherever it may lead.

    Hmmm.... Mr. Brown, those nice policemen would like a word with you. They think that you could assist them in their enquiries. Now, Mr. Brown.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Big Brother

    With apologies to the NRA

    Laws don't put people in jail. Judges do.

    Let's start a new pro-law group, which appreciates the legal system precisely for not working in the way paranoiacs believe it does.

  9. Dazed and Confused

    The reall trick here...

    Would be to wait for the Met Police Commissioner was on an Olympic platform talking about the policing of the games and how Party Apparatchiks will be given priorities lanes to drive to events while voters will be made to walk.

    Then to get a journalist to ask the Commissioner when he will be arresting himself under the child pron laws for appearing on a platform where the said image is clearly displayed.

    If this was timed right, you might even get a minister on the platform too... and the TV cameras from around the world.

    Wouldn't it be fun to see them explain that the picture that is widely believed to be of a child performing an adult act wasn't an offense and that they personally shouldn't be sent to spend the rest of their life behind bars.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    3 Strikes and your out

    "In the first instance, any image claiming to be "child porn" is evidence of child abuse, and those possessing such images are considered to be fuelling the trade for such material by creating an economic demand for it."

    Except there isn't a commercial trade, and if there was you would trace people by their credit card purchases. Kiddy porn was already illegal, this just expanded the definition to stuff that was not kiddy porn by leveraging the UK's pedo panic.

    Thus, if you point out that they're MAKING CARTOONS ILLEGAL, they point the finger and claim PEDO! Thus shutting down the discussion of how departed from common sense they have become.

    "Government Minister Maria Eagle"

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/images/mariaeagle3.jpg

    See a pattern? I do.

    For example this one (from Baroness Scotland/Hariet Harman no less)

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7528652.stm

    It's OK for a woman to murder a man if they claim they are in a abusive relationship... you could leave, or you could stay and murder your boyfriend, and they made it legal to murder your boyfriend.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Big Brother

      Is it Now Lawful to Kill Harriet Harman?

      Quoting from the linked BBC news article:-

      "And in "exceptional circumstances" a defendant could successfully claim they killed in response to words or conduct that left them feeling "seriously wronged"."

      At first I thought this might be a licence to start killing members of the government, due to their many words and much conduct that has left many of us feeling "seriously wronged".

      But then I thought of a possible twist: if I say I feel "seriously wronged" by Harriet Harman, can that now be taken as a death threat? Could I be arrested for saying I feel "seriously wronged" by members of the government?

      Uh... Somehow, I don't feel safe...

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Joke

    We'd almost belive it was clean

    If the first choice hadn't been a poorly disguised take on Goatse. Clearly they're pushing illegal pornograpy.

  12. Tim J
    Thumb Down

    This article is incredibly daft...

    ...and I'm really rather daft for spending a few minutes reading it, as are you for reading the comments about it.

    It fails at being funny too.

    1. Iggle Piggle
      IT Angle

      "We’re glad you liked this post!"

      I'll bet!

      But seriously, el-reg, if you stand by this article then presumably you are also in trouble for providing a link to the child pornography in question.

      I have to say it took a few looks and a lot of squinting to see what people were on about. I still can't see why Lisa Simpson though. As for the logo, it looks like they drew lots of really bad ideas on post it notes (pink and yellow) then threw them all on the ground in disgust and suddenly realised, "Hey that looks like 2012, let's go with that".

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    How does this affect bbfc classified works?

    I just checked, Puni Puni Poemy is bbfc classified (18) and quite blatantly covers this subject. Should we be turning in Amazon?

    1. Rande Knight

      Exception for classified works

      Mycho - There's an exception for classified works - and also, there's a clear intent to be humourous rather than pornographic.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Classified Works Excluded, But Not Extracts

      Section 63 deals with classified works: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_5#pt2-ch2-pb1-l1g63

      Basically, BBFC classified works are excluded from prohibition, which means you can still legally possess them. But, as with the extreme porn law (in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008), extracts from such classified works can still be illegal to possess.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        however

        However Manga doesn't get certified, and fansubbed anime wouldn't be covered and neither would imports.

  14. Jules

    Someone will turn it into something

    After reading the article and looking at the logo, I can see what people are referring to but if I had not looked at the logo, I would not have seen the "sex act".

    When my wife and I were thinking of names for our sons, we started avoiding certain names because of how kids might twist them into something else as an insult. After a while, we came to the conclusion that no matter what name we gave our sons, if another child wants to insult them and can't turn their name into something else insulting, they will just use a generic insult.

    The same could be said about this logo: somewhere, someone is going to see something in any or image. The committee should just avoid obvious images and recommend their logo based on their best efforts.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Boffin

    "those possessing such images are considered to be... creating an economic demand for it"

    So, presumably that means that people who file-share child pornography are harming the creators, and are thus heroes?

    In other news - wow, is your legal system screwed up. Jailing people for not decrypting files, jailing people for looking at cartoons, and eight bucks a gallon for gas. Yikes.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Up

      Could Someone Ask Lord Mandleson?

      "So, presumably that means that people who file-share child pornography are harming the creators, and are thus heroes?"

      Oh, wow!

      I really want someone to ask the Dark Lord this question in relation to his Digital Economy Bill: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/digitaleconomy.html

      Can we, as your question suggests, get child protection paedo-paranoia to collide with copyright Luddism?

      Q: Does unauthorised file sharing economically harm the creators, and thus act as a disincentive to create more material?

      Mandy: Yes.

      Q: So such unauthorised sharing of so-called "child porn" helps reduce actual child abuse, since the creators are economically harmed and therefore disincentivised from making more material?

      Mandy: ___________________________________

      Can someone please, please get Mandy to fill in the blank?

  16. Trev 2

    Keep up the pressure

    Looks like this could become very interesting as a court case and might finally remove Wolff Oilns along with that idiot Seb Co from the scene and maybe we'll even get our money back? Can't have one law for one and another for the public...

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why not use existing laws to imprison real pedophiles?

    "In the first instance, any image claiming to be "child porn" is evidence of child abuse, and those possessing such images are considered to be fuelling the trade for such material by creating an economic demand for it."

    How can a photograph of a toaster with "this is child porn" written on it be evidence of child abuse? The internet has so much free porn that vendors have a tough time selling it. If anyone is fuelling a trade for child porn it is the people who are making it scarce.

    I would much prefer the police to hunt down people who actually hurt children rather than fund a pogrom against Egon Schiele's successors.

  18. Frank Zuiderduin

    Complete and utter morons

    Child porn involves children. Drawings, whether they're realistic or not, can never be child porn. Anyone claiming otherwise is a complete idiot.

    Another reason why I'm glad I don't live in the UK. The laws over there are becoming more and more bizarre.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Stop

      2+2=5

      It's true, from a simple common-sense approach, that a drawing of a completely fictional child cannot and is not in anyway a 'real' child. And yet we have arrived at a situation where the law in the UK now says 2+2=5.

      You might think it's a drawing. You might think it's all fictional and that no 'actual' child was sexually abused. You might think that. But the law now says you are wrong to think that, no matter the evidence before your eyes. The law says all drawings henceforth deemed 'indecent' are to be treated in exactly the same way as real, actual child pornography.

      CEOP themselves (who else?) were chief amongst those goading on the consultation committee to treat such wholly fictional images as actual child pornography, with attendant criminal sentencing to be of an equally steep nature. One wonders what their motivation is their enthusiasm to criminalise vast numbers of comic collectors, or fans of wholly imaginary 3D CG porn.

      But nevertheless: the new truth remains (and is now law) - unreal, imaginary, fictional, fantasy, cartoon 'children' who never, ever existed in reality are to be given the same 'protection' by police, courts and child advocates as the real thing, including prison sentences for 'offenders', entry onto the SoR, losss of job, livelihood, home and family and, of course, the child protection industry's biggest, bluntest weapon of choice: to be branded publicly as a paedophile.

      In the end, this law was only about opportunism on the part of CEOP and ACPO - the chance for frustrated police officers to idly search through a suspects comic collection if finding something incriminating on their laptop proves a little tricky. It's just another tool in the box, along with the new laws on 'extreme (adult) porn'. It all helps to keep those arrest and conviction figures high and in today's modern PRP police force the Paedogeddon has been an absolute godsend. Just ask CEOP, who are now (armed with their new laws) turning to P2P networks and social networking sites, since the death of 'commercial' child pornography has presumably left them a little short of any actual work.

      Kerchiiiing!

  19. Mike Richards Silver badge

    “The London 2012 logo depicts the figure 2012 and nothing else.”

    Well that passed me by. Am I unusual in never recognising those objects as numbers?

    I'd love to know if this logo was ever considered by focus groups before being unveiled to a slack-jawed in disbelief public by the arbiters of artistic fashion - Tessa (I'm married to a crook) Jowell and Sebastian (I was almost strangled once by William Hague) Coe.

    And sorry LOCOG, once you see Bill Clinton and Lisa Simpson in the logo, you can't see anything else.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Welcome

    Quick deletion of the crap logo

    I hope someone does make an official complaint to the police about the sexual nature of the logo (when the law becomes official) and that it causes the Olympic committee to change the logo to something that incorporates London properly into it's design.

    If the police and government then say "don't be stupid it's obviously not a sexual picture" then they've pretty much shot themselves in the foot as people can use it as a defence in the future. Any politician who tries to bring in catch all laws should have learnt by now that human nature being what it is there will always be exceptions and work arounds that make the law pointless. I think Mandy should be educated about this aspect when it comes to his law trying to stop copyright pirates.

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    Really now...

    This is the first time I've seen that logo and I must say, it is horrible. I had to stare at it for a couple minutes just to figure out that it was supposed to form a 2, a 0, a 1 and a second 2. But the Lisa Simpson angle is absurd. It took me another couple minutes of staring at it after I read that section to figure out how you could possibly piece that together to get anything even remotely like someone giving oral sex.

    All I can say, is that there must be WAY too much repressed sexual tension over there if that's what everyone saw when they first looked at that logo.

    ...Though, you should probably send someone to get back that 400k they stole from you.

    Paris, cause the logo looks about as much like her as it does Lisa Simpson.

  22. Bunglebear
    Unhappy

    Proclivity?

    Legislation based on proclivity is extremely dangerous, bordering on thought crime. The current laws, as explained in the article, do make sense as a child would have to be abused for the picture to be produced. But by criminalising the production of someone's mind is very difficult to justify. What if I doodle a cartoon of me killing someone? Does that give me proclivity to murder?

  23. Uncle Slacky Silver badge

    Get Armstrong & Miller!

    They had some good alternative logo ideas a few weeks ago, as I recall...

  24. Fred Flintstone Gold badge
    Thumb Up

    Translated: it's waiting for the law to be ratified

    I think the time between the law being ratified and some joker filing the complaint is probably going to be measured in microseconds. The reason for that is IMHO obvious: I haven't found anyone yet in support of this law, or any other recent additions to the books (like the copyright law which would give unelected Mandelson uncontrolled power over stating what constitutes an offence and what not).

    It is thus time to break out the popcorn - this going to be a show worth watching..

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Pirate

      IWF

      The Internet Watch Foundation, IWF, will come in very handy for this kind of thing: http://www.iwf.org.uk/

      Not that I'm calling for people to make frivolous reports/complaints. No, not at all. There will, I'm sure, be plenty of genuine, borderline cases for the IWF, and their police advisors, to deal with. Like, for example, the Smurf cases suggested by the next commenter: http://forums.theregister.co.uk/post/637232

  25. Tel
    Grenade

    Question...

    How would this law relate to (illicit) cartoon imagery of Smurfs engaged in 'adult activity'?

    Does anyone know how young or old Smurfs are meant to be? Who decides whether Smurfette is of legal age or not?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      12 Good men and true

      It's up to the jury to decide whether, in the words of the Act, "the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are

      not those of a child."

  26. Robert Brandon
    Paris Hilton

    What the…???

    People actually see Lisa Simpson giving fallatio in the logo? Is this like one of those magic eye posters? That or some people have really sick minds.

    Paris cuz, well… do you really have to ask?

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Poetic justice?

    I've made my wish. Another crap labour law might just serve one tiny but extremely useful purpose if some of this came to pass. Nothing could be a better illustration of uk.gov's woeful talent for lawmaking than finding the piano wire wrapped tightly round their own testicles.

    Appalling logo, dreadful, lazy lawmaking, and frankly awful government.

  28. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    We'll see

    It'll all come out eventually - suck it and see :o

  29. Daemon ZOGG
    Megaphone

    What The HELL?!!!!

    While I have no love for the Olympic Committee...

    I would like to say that it's not the committees fault that Sexually Frustrated individuals began seeing pornographic images in everything. Including the Olympic logo.

    The committee and the rest of the civilized world should not have to suffer from the delusional perceptions of these pedo-perverts.

    1. Nebulo

      Except ...

      It's not the rest of the civilised world's fault that sexually obsessed authorities began seeing pornographic images in everything, including our cartoon collections.

      _None_ of us should have to suffer from the delusional perceptions of these paedo-perverts, but that's the law now.

      Probably most of us actually preferred living in a world where you didn't have to keep your every thought, word and deed under continual inspection lest some Common Purpose droid denounce you for some doctrinal heresy. But when you have laws like this, written and passed by the sort of creatures which run this show, their vile obsessions poison every aspect of your life, as the very existence of this story proves.

      Oh, and I agree with you about the committee, and with everybody about the bloody awful logo.

    2. I didn't do IT.
      Pirate

      Impressively Implemented Inticements

      I think some people may be missing the point. By way of this example, specifically the 2012 Olympics logo, people are being allowed to incriminate themselves. They devised a nifty "icon" that _must_ be placed where all can see it, all the time. As this official piece of "art" is not depicting a person in detail, and was not expressly created for arousal, it is within the eye (and mind) of the beholder...

      Which means all those who "see" a(n incestual) fellatiatic act are, themselves, the _very_ persons the gov is trying to route out with this legislation.

      And if you _happen_ to care/dare enough to (attempt to) use the High and Moral Laws against They Who Must Be Obeyed, you are meeting all the(ir) criteria, and are a danger to allow on the streets.

      Didn't you guys kick out all the uptight Protestants from your country already? Obviously, they got back in - so you must need tighter Border Control. For your own good, you know. :)

  30. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    The Simpsons Movie...

    ...intentionally shows Bart's penis during the bit where he is skateboarding nude.

    So, owning a copy of The Simpsons Movie will now be a strict liability offence.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Bart is not a child, he's 20!

      So is Bart a representation of a child? Or is Bart the "actor" a 20-year-old (ie. as old as the series)?

      Come to think of it, both Bart and Lisa are exactly the same age as the series. So is this incest, or is Lisa just checking whether Bart's zip is broken?

    2. mmiied
      Stop

      I rember from the film

      it was his finger he was sticking out at the time

      but take thouse frames out of context and *slam* *bang*

  31. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So...

    Where do we send our complaints that we find this logo offensive?

    That way they might

    1) Stop making up such stupidly vague laws based on personal opinions

    2) Get a better logo than that pile of squiggles.

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Pfft

    There should be a law against charging £400k for something any normal member of society would be genuinely ashamed to have created, let alone charged for.

    If I had drawn that POS I'd climb tower bridge, stick a sawed-off in my mouth, and "apologise"

  33. Mark 110

    WTF

    I'm sorry. I have looked quite hard at the logo. I just don't see it/

    - I can't see Lisa Simpson

    - I can't see anything particularly phallic

    - which makes it quite hard to see an act of fellatio taking place

    - and I am just in from the pub - if fellatio was happening |I would see it

    I'm sure the register could help me out here and draw me some cartoon lines around what I'm supposed to be seeing but can't. Please do - I clearly need help. [not trying to get you in trouble with the busies - honest guv - but if you're gonna write something at least let it have a basis in reality instead of just making it up - so lets see your pic of Lisa giving head please]

  34. Anonymous Coward
    Coat

    So..

    I guess using one of those "nude ladies" fonts in size under 18pts is now illegal?

  35. Martin 6 Silver badge

    Except..

    I think you're forgetting the "one law for us one law for them" clause

  36. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    Drawing Curtains?

    As John Ozimek mentioned in his article, this law criminalises possession of images of sexual activity in the presence of children (Section 62 (7) (a)).

    So, I can legally possess a hardcore porn photo of some adults having sex. But I can't legally draw a picture of a child in the background, because then it's an image of sex in the presence of a child. But if I draw a picture frame in the background, and then draw a child in it, that's okay, because then it's just an image of sex in the presence of a picture of a child. But if I then draw some curtains around that picture frame, it turns it into a window frame, and it's back to being an illegal image of sex in the presence of a child again.

    If I've got this right, you can commit a sex crime against an imaginary child by drawing a picture of some curtains.

    That's insane!

    I'm assuming that an image of sex in the presence of a picture of a child doesn't count as an image of sex in the presence of a child, but I might have got that wrong. Section 65 (8) says: "References to an image of a child include references to an image of an imaginary child." Would a picture of a child within an image count as an imaginary child? If so, then drawing a picture frame around a drawing of a child wouldn't make an otherwise illegal image legal to possess after all.

    But that would mean that while you can still legally have real sex in front of a drawing of a child, you can't legally possess a photo of that!

    But this law is insane anyway.

    Seriously, if you had a choice between stopping one real child from being subjected to real abuse, and stopping a million cartoon characters from being subjected to fictional abuse, which abuse would you choose to stop?

    Those who say that drawings are as bad as genuinely abusive photos seem to have a dangerous lack of ability to distinguish between what's real and what's imaginary. Or maybe they just don't think real children are worth anything more than drawings. Either way, such people are obviously not to be trusted when it comes to child protection.

    Maria Eagle is a real danger to all of us.

    1. John G Imrie
      Unhappy

      Re: Drawing Curtains?

      Seriously, if you had a choice between stopping one real child from being subjected to real abuse, and stopping a million cartoon characters from being subjected to fictional abuse, which abuse would you choose to stop?

      Thats easy, the cartoon characters. It boosts the crime report stats and is so much easier to find the evidence for.

  37. mehfeh
    Thumb Up

    give us the .gif

    GIVE US THE .GIF!

    Sweet!

  38. Anonymous Coward
    Big Brother

    Age?

    With a photo the subject has an actual age. With a cartoon how can tell an 18 year old from a 16 year old? I wonder who gets to decide. Like porn in general extreme examples may be clear enough but who draws the line on the boarder line examples?

    Of course the big problem is that it's a &$#^#%@ cartoon!

    It's not real... no people were harmed in the making of this image.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Subject age is different in photos

      My age is different from that in my photos.

      I know someone with a photography of themselves as a toddler, stark naked, showing everything. As an adult, they tell me that they were not abused, and you are welcome to view it, and do with it as you please... fantasize over it, or worse.

      As an adult myself, I'd be happy to let others view similar photos of myself. If I was lucky enough to have had sex as a youngster (and I was able and willing), as I adult, I am happy for you to have photos of that too. No abuse. No potential abuse.

  39. Lars Silver badge
    Happy

    Splendid

    Now I can se the blow job but not Lisa Simpson, however, good for me, she is 8 years of age according to the Wikipedia with 4,450,000 hits for Lisa Simpson on Google.

    Rubbish logo, no doubt, on the other hand I suppose there will be more jobs of that sort during the Olympic in London than normally.

    So lets leave it to the jury.

  40. Anonymous Coward
    Heart

    More Importantly....

    Which moderator is authorizing posts at 4:49am?! Go back to bed!!!!!!!!!

    I've an excuse for being up, I'm in Asia.

  41. Anonymous Coward
    WTF?

    There is this website...

    ... it's intended to promote good parenting by pointing out some really bad parenting. The site is named why the fuck do you have a kid. I'm not linking it because I'm no longer sure if a photo of a woman flashing her tits (with black censor bar) while her child just looks embarrassed and annoyed is considered evidence of peadophilia or not.

  42. Noodle
    Thumb Down

    Non Story

    As much as I think this new law is a terrible knee-jerk unenforceable piece of legislation and that the 2012 Olympic logo is almost certain to be remembered as the worst Olymic logo ever, I have to say this article really is clutching at some very desperate straws to try and cobble them together into a story.

    There is no chance in hell the government will ever entertain any kind of legal challenge to the Olympic logo based on these new porn laws.

    1. jsp

      Not up to them

      Luckily, it is not up to the government. If someone brings it to the notice of the police, they ahve to act. If they take it to the DPP, they have to act. In theory, at least, the government has no control over this process.

  43. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Coat

    This is not a law

    It's a bunch of clause within an Act. These ones happen to be rubbish.

    These are a particularly pointless and fairly petty minded group put in to a suitcase act for reasons I cannot begin to imagine but which probably say a lot more about the upbringing and home lives of the people concerned than about real crime.

    Had it been split out as a seperate law it would have been a fairly short Bill which should have been shown up as the draconian but stupid piece of legislation it is.

    Mine's the one with "The British Legal System for Dummies" in the pocket.

  44. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Classified Works Excluded, But Not Extracts

      Section 63 of the Act is what you want: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_5#pt2-ch2-pb1-l1g63

      It basically says that classified works are excluded from prohibition, meaning that you can legally possess BBFC classified works. But extracts from such works might still be illegal.

      Section 62 sets out the prohibition itself. Then Section 63 starts:-

      "63 Exclusion of classified film etc

      (1) Section 62(1) does not apply to excluded images.

      (2) An “excluded image” is an image which forms part of a series of images contained in a recording of the whole or part of a classified work.

      (3) But such an image is not an “excluded image” if—

      (a) it is contained in a recording of an extract from a classified work, and

      (b) it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been extracted (whether with or without other images) solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

      ..."

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. keddaw
          WTF?

          Bond (age)

          The torture scene in Casino Royale, if extracted and placed along side other BDSM clips would be considred extreme porn and you could be prosecuted for owning it. And that is from a 12 rated film!

          These new laws are shocking and a sure sign that we are living in a theocracy where our thoughts are being criminalised if they do not fit in with New Labour's moral ideals.

  45. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The chicken and the potential eggs

    Since there is a "no justification" clause, claiming that the logo represents the year 2012, will not wash. Since there is the POTENTIAL for harm, there is no choice but to go to court.

    This reminds me of the story of the man who stole a hen, and the courts calculated that the hen could potentially lay a 1000 eggs, which in turn could produce hens that could potentially lay a 1000 eggs each. The man was liable for a million hens in lost revenue, and was fined £1,000,000 for lost of potential revenue.

    A POTENTIAL hen is not a hen. POTENTIAL abuse is not abuse. A POTENTIAL child (ie cartoon) is not a child.

    Why can the law and the government not distinguish make-believe from real life. These are all mind crimes.

  46. ShaggyDoggy

    Huh ?

    It might be a picture of a midget

  47. Skizz
    FAIL

    What if...

    ...someone e-mailed all the MPs a cartoon containing illegal images. Could we then arrest anyone who received said e-mail?

    Skizz

  48. Doug Glass
    Go

    Sins of the Fathers

    I'll say it again. You guys think the USof A is oppressive and stupid? That's just a laugh and the jokes on you!

    1. CD001

      ummm yeah

      That's just a laugh and the jokes on you!

      ...

      It's a contraction of "joke is" so should be "joke's" - if you're going to imply that all Brits are stupid at least use the correct grammar when doing so.

      So yes, the U.S. of A. _is_ oppressive and stupid but that doesn't mean you've got a monopoly on it - good ol' Blighty can be even more oppressive and just as stupid.

  49. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    St. Trinians

    Nuff said, let the book burning begin.

  50. Chris Church
    Pirate

    Simpsons "Child" Porn!?

    Oh come on....Lisa Simpson is at least in her 20's if not 30's by now. Didn't you see the episode where they uncovered that the producers were feeding them growth suppressants! lol

  51. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    On the birght side...

    If the image is proved to be indecent (I have to agree there is a definite problem with the Lisa issue - to me it looks more like the problem described than something that says 2012), then I would think that the Olympics committee would have a good case against the people who designed the Logo - they should be able to get the outrageous costs back, and spend a much smaller amount on a new logo, done by someone who could actually draw.

    On the other hand, think of all the costs associated with changing all the posters, notepaper, mementos etc.

    Ah well, they brought it upon themselves...

  52. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Ambivalent

    This sounds like a really stupid law. A cartoon or drawing doesn't hurt anybody and is often ambiguous as to what it depicts or the ages of the fictional participants.

    On the other hand if this gets rid of the terrible Olympic 2012 logo then perhaps it's necessary. How can people NOT see Lisa Simpson kneeling down and giving a blowjob? As soon as that was pointed out it was all I could see. It's not as if the numbers are very clear, the logo looked stupid to start with, it's an embarrassment even without the sexual connotation.

  53. Rob

    Dear Government ro

    I have a Petard if you need one for the next stage that you need to embark on, I'm also available to help you 'hoist' at no extra cost, please bear in mind the number of MP's we need to hoist when I claim for reimbursement of sustenance.

    Kind Regards,

    Expendable Citizen (aka Public Scum)

  54. Ball boy
    Paris Hilton

    Even if it *is* Lisa Simpson..

    She was 8 when the Simpsons was first broadcast in 1989 (cf. Wikipedia et al). The Olympic logo, featuring Ms. Simpson, was first aired on or around June 2007 making Ms. Simpson a somewhat more reasonable - and legal - 26 year old female. While watching the logo (especially on a train or any situation where it might appear to move slightly) might constitute pornography, it is between consenting adults and thus of no consequence in regard the Act.

    Quite why Lisa feels the need to 'help' a gentleman this badly deformed is beyond me; he's clearly in more urgent need of medical attention than her administration.

    Actually I think it's Amy Winehouse, photographed from a distance.

    Nuff said. Can we have a reference to PH now, please? I think we've earnt one.

    1. Sir Runcible Spoon
      FAIL

      Even if Lisa is now 26

      The image is that of her as a child and therefore illegal.

      Go directly to jail and do not collect your mange comic on the way.

  55. IdristheSweep
    Joke

    Wellspring of guilty...

    So who's going to be painting little nappies on all the images of cherubs that bedeck our churches and galleries? Big hand to the first person who pops a pair of Pampers onto the statue of Eros outside Buck House!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Paris Hilton

      I think...

      ... Eros is in Piccadilly Circus which is about a mile from Buck House.

  56. Jimmy 1
    Thumb Up

    Sit on this.

    Considering the ambiguous nature of the Olympic logo and the loony-tunes legislation that reclassifies schoolboy smut as evidence of sexual deviance, could we please have a clear and unambiguous assurance from El Reg that the icon attached to this post is not an invitation to New Labour's corporate cocksuckers to indulge in further acts of sexual submission.

    Failure to comply may result in a midnight visit by the Thought Police.

  57. noboard

    probably already mentioned but...

    "The Ministry of Justice said it could not help: it was responsible for policy, but how a law would be used in future was a matter for police and Crown Prosecution Service."

    Isn't that the problem. The government pulls laws out of its arse. WHen told they're crap and don't work, ignore everyone and push them through. Then once its law they say "Not our problem".

    Can't we get a bunch of politicians locked up on the basis their existence harms everyone including children.

  58. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    What next...? Pooh-Clouds?!!

    Oh ffs..

    Anyone that is put out by the association of this logo and some fictiious character should be rounded up and shot. Next will be Pooh-Clouds from the mind of A.A.Milne.. Look out the Thought-Police are out again...

    Get a life, or better still get in the sea into the sea and keep walking.. Life will be better without you.

    Pfft...

  59. Skizz
    Grenade

    What if... Part II

    Not only do you e-mail the MPs dodgy cartoons, you encrypt them as well, clearly supplying the decryption key. Then, when the cops turn up, they can be done for either a) not providing the decryption keys to access the file under the terrorism laws, or b) having dodgy pictures, which has strict liability and therefore it doesn't matter that they never solicited the e-mails. Brilliant.

  60. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Missing the point

    The problem with digital child porn like lolicon isn't about what's appearing in the image, it's about what it's promoting. Most of it promotes the idea that the child participant is eager, willing, and somewhat desperate to engage in sexual acts with an older male. While anyone 'normal' would know that's fantasy a paedophile sees it as confirmation of his belief that children are sexual beings repressed by society. This person then goes to related forums, and falls into the cycle of justification, backpatting and escalation, with all his fellow paedos telling him he's right, that the child in the park who briefly flashed her underwear on the climbing-frame is signalling to him, that the little boy across the road who undresses in front of his window is giving him the come on. More images of willing, eager kids are consumed, the entire thing escalates, then one day....

    Q- If you all think that digital child porn is fine and dandy, would you be happy letting that person babysit your child?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Ridiculous.

      The point is not that any of this stuff is 'promoting' paedophilia; it's that none of this stuff can be held up in any court by any sane, rational person and claimed to be actual child pornography since no actual child was ever involved in its creation. To prosecute - and imprison - people for merely owning or even - if CEOP get's it way - looking at these drawings or CG renders is frankly outrageous. To ruin their lives, their careers and their relationships with family and friends and have them branded as 'sex offenders' is simply inhuman. And this is the kind of outcome CEOP and their countless tailgaters must surely consider 'a job well done'.

      I suspect the vast majority of El Reg's readers can spot the difference between a sensible law protecting the welfare of children and a badly designed law with, as the article on El reg says, a '...strong inclination toward punishing individuals on the basis of their proclivities, irrespective of harm done, or even potential for copycatting.'

      What is happening to us? Can we not tell tell the difference between real and imagined dangers any more?

      Kudos to John Ozimek and El Reg for never taking their eye off this story. There has been consistent reporting of this wretched legislation, right from it's inception back in 2007.

    2. Cameron Colley

      RE: ... would you be happy letting that person babysit your child?

      There are plenty of people I wouldn't let babysit a child of mine -- and they include people I would be happy to associate with, or at least wouldn't actively avoid, and wouldn't want locked up.

      While it's true I would find someone obsessed with Lolicon strange I also find, for example, those obsessed with eternal damnation and other weird myths strange also -- but I won't be calling for all Catholics to be arrested.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Images don't promote

      People who watch war films do not promote it. People who drink are not necessarily alcoholics. People who fantasize about bondage and rape scenarios know the difference about role play and real life. Porn does not make adults rapists.

      People who look after kids are called parents. They already include the scum of the earth.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Stop

      Abusers' Excuses

      In your comment, you're taking the abusers' line, peddling abusers' excuses for abuse.

      What you're describing is an abuser refusing to take responsibility for their own actions, trying to put the blame elsewhere instead. The abuser blames pictures. The abuser blames other abusers, collectively. The abuser keeps trying to blame everyone and everything else, rather than take responsibility for their own actions.

      And you're going along with that. You seem to genuinely believe it, all the way down the line. Just like a self-deluding abuser who's deep in denial.

      At no point did you apportion any of the blame to the abuser. None whatsoever.

      The kind of line you've taken is exactly what the abusers want. You're validating their efforts to put the blame elsewhere, and evade personal responsibility. That doesn't encourage them to stop abusing. On the contrary, laws like the cartoon law only reinforce the idea that it's not the abusers themselves who are to blame. The cartoon law says it's the pictures that are to blame, that the abusers are right to blame the pictures.

      I don't believe pictures are to blame. I don't believe it's other people who are to blame. I believe it's the abusers themselves who are to blame. And we're not going to stop the abuse by buying their feeble excuses and going along with their efforts to blame such things as drawings.

      Let's not forget that even young children watching cartoons on telly and reading comics can tell the difference between what's make-believe and what's real. Are we really supposed to believe that otherwise mentally competent adults can't? Do you really expect us to believe your excuses?

      Even if it did work the way you describe, the appropriate response wouldn't be to criminalise possession of drawings. Instead, it would be some sort of information/education campaign, raising public awareness, in which the unacceptability of abuse is explained clearly. If potential abusers are so easily influenced by what they see and read, then tell them and show them the reality of abuse, about how cartoons aren't real, and that attempts to blame cartoons, comics, other people, etc, just won't wash.

      Please stop making excuses for abuse.

  61. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It isn't Lisa Simpson.

    Quite clearly it isn't Lisa Simpson. It is her tiny baby sister Maggie. Which surely makes this travesty even worse. She is even cupping.

    £400,000 for something that looks like a collection of cookie-cutters.

    Still, it is better than the BAE rebranding of a grey circle. I'm guessing they just drew around their pint glass with a pencil in the pub, while spending all the money they were paid for it.

  62. J-Wick
    Thumb Up

    Good reporting, Reg!

    Glad to see that there are some people still reporting actual news stories, not who's crashed their SUV into a fire hydrant or gatecrashed a White House State Dinner this week (though I wouldn't mind crashing her White House, phwoar!)

    Ahem.

    Anyway, carry on. I'm going to see if I can vote for my own comment now...

  63. unitron
    WTF?

    Huh?

    Is that a paint spill?

    Am I following the correct link?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/images/2007/06/04/2012_logo_white_385x450.jpg

    If that looks like any of the characters from The Simpsons doing anything, the show must be drawn quite differently over there from the one we see here in the States. I can't anthropomorphise those squiggles into anything, and it's not from lack of an instinct for the prurient.

    Now if this story had been about how good a logo this was I would have used the FAIL icon big time. Just trying to see 2012 in it gives me a severe headache.

    They should have farmed out the job to the graphics folks at Google.

  64. TimNevins
    FAIL

    Distraction

    There is a very good reason why the logo triggers epilepsy. Kids are seeing something adults are not seeing....

    Olympic Logo 2012 Exposed

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww-V9K3UdHw

    2012_London_Olympics_Logo

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGZiDsgqAx4

    Never mind. Only a couple of years to go before you Brits cash in.

  65. Anonymous Coward
    WTF?

    A big mess of confusion

    This is all so screwed up... The government will say (in response to the 2012 logo) that they are only intending works which already come under the Obscene Publications Act to be caught up in this (which is a very high standard in terms of what constitutes 'obscene'). That was their response when I asked about this in relation to Manga some time ago. The problem lies in the fact that these clauses are so badly worded that they are completely open to interpretation by the courts and police, meaning that any good intentions on behalf of parliament can be pretty much washed away by a particularly determined police force or judge.

    The status of classified works is a prime example - take Battle Royale, for example; very well known film, book and Manga, available to buy in Waterstones - in the first volume there's a picture of one of the characters whose backstory involves her seducing men for money in nightclubs - there's a drawing there which most certainly (in isolation) would fall under this act. So by this law, own the book and you're ok - tear the page out and you will be on the sex offenders register. Don't forget that the police and CEOP etc lobbied that the punishments for ownership of cartoon images should be exactly the same as those for the real deal.

    These weird laws do nothing to really target either the root causes of abuse or the people who are causing it - they just add confusion and in my mind dilute the issue into nothing more than a blind, moral panic. Remember the Scorpions stuff from this time last year? Go into HMV on Oxford Street and head to the S section - you'll see Virgin Killer on open display! And yet both IWF and the Police stated they believed this to be an indecent image (and did not go back on this assessment, even after it was unblocked)

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021